Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[consiglieri]

Hi, Meadowchik! I hope you are doing well. Good questions both.

1. It was my decision to not announce the content of the podcast beforehand to avoid a coordinated real-time response of any sort from winged monkeys. I didn't know what they might try, but that is the problem with winged monkeys. They are hard to predict. Best to avoid them altogether if you can.

2. I can confirm that it was John Dehlin who prepared the transcripts of the texts between him and Rosebud. They are taken from a statement sworn to by John Dehlin under penalty of perjury and included as an attachment to the Open Stories Foundation response to Rosebud's NH complaint in 2013. Natasha Helfer said she had confirmed at the time the statement was being prepared that John Dehlin had accurately transcribed the texts from his cell phone.

I hope that answers your questions.

Take care!

What do you mean by winged monkeys?

Ftr you have (or had) regular listeners who were disappointed by that decision.

I can live with that.

[drumdude]

Probably minions.



Why?

Not everyone listens to the podcast live. So by not giving them advance notice, he prevented them from being able to call in and participate in the discussion.

Given the fact that Rosebud supporters have created a website calling Dehlin a pedophile, I think that was a wise choice not to announce it ahead of time.

[jpatterson]

I think Joanna did the best with what she knew at the time. Which we don’t even know, and unless she has copious notes she may fall into unreliable memory. I also don’t think she has any compelling reason to get involved yet again.

Copious? That's debatable. But she did take notes. And her notes confirm my characterization. She was worried about a lawsuit and acted accordingly.

[Res Ipsa]

I think Joanna did the best with what she knew at the time. Which we don’t even know, and unless she has copious notes she may fall into unreliable memory. I also don’t think she has any compelling reason to get involved yet again.

Copious? That's debatable. But she did take notes. And her notes confirm my characterization. She was worried about a lawsuit and acted accordingly.

As a member of the Board, she had a legal duty to act in the best interest of the Foundation.

[dastardly stem]

What I Know

1) I know that John Dehlin lies. He lies about his motivations, he lies about his intentions, he lies about his character. He elevates selective editing to an art form. He uses the same kind of twisted logic and word games the very apologists he criticizes use to justify Book of Mormon historicity and Joseph's sexual endeavors. DP's "maybe horses were tapirs" is John's "we were equals."

2) I know that the allegations of harassment and abuse against John are anything but "baseless" as John has so often characterized them as. John's approach to this whole fiasco is very Bill Clintonian. Uses very precise wording to avoid blatant lies and yet spins the exact yarn he wants to tell.

3) I know that I believed John in 2014 when he told me Rosebud was a crazy psycho stalker and told me she was trying to take him down here on MD and via a frivolous lawsuit. I know that, at the time, that belief was backed up by my reading of Rosebud's posts here. I know that I carried that belief (crazy, psycho, stalker) and publicly and privately defended John and disparaged Rosebud's story for almost three years. I know I argued privately with Kate Kelly about it. I know that John is very good at telling people stories, getting them to believe him, then getting them to defend him vehemently.

4) I know that after spending several dozen hours examining reams of documents and hours of recordings, I now believe a completely different narrative than the one John wants everyone to believe: that Rosebud is crazy and that any allegations of impropriety are baseless.

5) I know that John and Rosebud were involved in an incredibly complex sexual relationship that cannot be boiled down to simple characterizations. Anyone who attempts to throw blanket statements around their relationship (it was all consensual or it was all sexual harassment/abuse) is being intellectually lazy. I also know that anyone using black-and-white arguments to criticize decision making in the midst of such a complex relationships (such as she consented once, so everything after that was fair game) is actively contributing to rape culture.

6) I know that trauma, especially related to sexual experiences or activity is also incredibly complicated, elicits intense feelings of shame which can warp perception and often takes a long time to sort through. I know that what someone believes about the nature of a relationship and specific interactions often look very, very different with time, separation and especially professional therapy. To make declarations about what someone believed or didn't believe while the person was in the midst of experiencing trauma and then assign finality to those beliefs, thus deriding any future insights they may form through time, separation and therapy is similarly shortsighted and completely flies in the face of published research about how our brains process trauma. I know that people who argue these issues in black and white (she said it was consensual at the time so she can't change her mind later) are either not arguing in good faith or are completely ignorant of the nuances of trauma and sexual violence. I know that power dynamics also play a major role in how consent is understood and processed in the moment and later.

7) I know that Rosebud told John in the summer of 2011 that he should go back to his wife and that a physical relationship between them would only end in disaster. I know that this response only made John pursue her more. I know that John sexted with Rosebud after the texts that were revealed on ML, undercutting his claim that he didn't want any sexual contact with her.

8) I know that once she had heard enough detail from both parties, Joanna Brooks' primary motivation was protecting the foundation from legal liability and potential litigation and that her decisions were based almost entirely on that framework.

9) I know that Rosebud offered contradicting claims, stories and statements in the midst of the period between Aug 10 and Aug 31, when she was terminated. I know at least one of those contradictions (between her and Joanna) was the result of John using intimidation tactics like unilaterally locking her out of the website in the midst of Joanna trying to negotiate a peace treaty. I know Rosebud also behaved irrationally in the months after her firing. I know that John fanned flames behind the scenes and then played innocent to those who controlled his fate.

10) I also know that John continues to present his side of the story, to this day, using his same selective editing techniques and continues to manipulate people into believing that any allegations are baseless and we should feel bad because he was just a guy trying to navigate some crazy stalker (see, look how crazy her texts and emails are). I know, for example, that Rosebud's sexual harassment claim was withdrawn not because of lack of merit, but because of lack of standing, an extremely important distinction that John continues to intentionally obfuscate. I know that Natasha at the very least lacked credibility, and at the most was flat-out lying in her ML interview. I also know the "blackmail" email was not presented in its full context and was a response to what Rosebud interpreted as John trying to control the narrative yet again.

11) I know that John has violated federal tax code. I know that John started the foundation in order to get people to donate more money than they normally would otherwise so he could pay for his PhD and for personal expenses. I know that John was advised against this approach but did it anyway. I know that John desired as little board empowerment as possible, at least in the early years of the foundation. I know that as a result of the Rosebud episode, he gained almost complete control over the foundation and raised his pay (including paying himself back pay) despite spending more time on his PhD pursuit and less time running the Open Stories Foundation.

12) I know that John financially benefited from Rosebud's firing as well as from his excommunication and would likely have been forced to make a new plan professionally if he had gone "all the way" with Rosebud, including abandoning or postponing his PhD. I know that Rosebud suffered financially, educationally and professionally as a result of being terminated from Open Stories Foundation.




What I Believe but Don't Know


13) I believe that Rosebud's relationship with John was both toxic and intoxicating. I believe they loved each other but were both very very bad for each other. I believe part of that was the fact that John was afraid if he had intercourse, he would be excommunicated for adultery. I believe John had pinned all his professional hopes on a honorable and public excommunication for agitating against the church. I believe Rosebud was being gaslighted on a frequent basis because of John's confliction between wanting to leave his wife and be with her and wanting to keep his family intact and get his honorable excommunication. I believe all of these elements caused him to toy with her on an ongoing basis. I believe this manipulation explains her irrational behavior at many turns and at many critical moments. I refer to No. 5 above.

14) I believe that the description Rosebud gives of her and John's sexual interaction in Idaho would, by most legal definitions, be considered at least misdemeanor sexual battery. I believe she is telling the truth about this encounter.

15) I believe that Rosebud has many, many, many, many regrets about the decisions she made along the way, many of the things she said along the way. I believe she has a different understanding about the nature of her relationship with John than she did as things were transpiring. I refer to No. 6 above.

16) I believe that John set in plan a motion to intimidate and push out Rosebud after it became clear that Open Stories Foundation conferences were becoming a success and Rosebud was gaining more authority and decision-making abilities within the organization that he founded. I believe he was afraid that if conferences became the primary breadwinner of Open Stories Foundation that his podcast would suffer and he would lose his chance at an honorable excommunication. I believe his ultimate conflict was between wanting Rosebud and wanting a September Six-type legacy.

Given everything above,

17) I believe that Rosebud was sexually harassed, according to both legal definitions and the Open Stories Foundation's current policy (which conveniently wasn't implemented until its leader had already sexually harassed a subordinate).

18) I believe Joanna Brooks was in the unenviable position of having to choose between two potential futures of Open Stories: One where John would lead or one where Rosebud would lead. I believe Joanna, in that moment, chose John. I believe she has deep regrets about this decision.

19) I believe Joanna's decision in No. 18 was further indication to Rosebud that John had all the power. I believe that further exacerbated her trauma. I believe that caused her to make even more rash, poor decisions.

20) I believe that Nos. 18 and 19 adequately explain the two pieces of evidence John presented during the ML interview. I believe Rosebud was goading John about having sexual intercourse because she knew he couldn't because he was saving himself for a "righteous" excommunication and because he only really enjoyed his cat-and-mouse pursuit of her. I believe John was lying in wait for this very kind of ammunition since he had already decided to get rid of her. I also believe, given further context, the October "blackmail" email is easily interpreted as facetious on Rosebud's part...but still very much ill-advised.

20) I believe that both parties made statements and carried out actions that were contradictory during the fallout. I believe both sides simultaneously wanted the truth out and their secrets kept. And I believe the failure of all parties (John/Margi, Rosebud/her husband/Open Stories Foundation board) to come to an agreement on how to handle the public fallout of what had happened set off a chain reaction of back-and-forth retaliation, threats that extend until today.

21) I believe Rosebud was well within her rights to file a sexual harassment claim, something that many victims can never bring themselves to do. I believe it was a brave act and any attempts to frame that act in a disparaging way (including by John) have a chilling effect on victims and contributes to a culture where harassment is allowed to thrive

22) I believe John's actions, lies, manipulations and harassment make him uniquely unqualified to be talking about or holding himself up as an activist or leader on many of the issues he talks about within Open Stories Foundation properties and activities.

23) I believe that John's actions, character and lack of integrity make him uniquely unqualified to run a public charity that handles tax-exempt donations.

24) I believe that the only way for John to find the peace he has been looking for all these years is to finally, finally be honest with himself and with others. I believe we are all redeemable. I believe the hill is very, very high for John to climb. But I believe he can do it.

Finally,

I believe there is nothing more dehumanizing than trying to erase someone. I believe Rosebud, for all of her self-admitted faults, is someone who has experienced ten lifetimes of trauma. I believe her best days are ahead of her. And I believe not that she is stronger because of all of this, but that she has emerged and will continue to emerge from this because she is strong.

If anyone concedes all the above, what is the point?

If Dehlin used his power and authority to scheme a way to get Rosebud out, because of their affair, what can possibly come of this now? Are you just wanting to smear John's name because you don't think he should be doing what he's doing? Do his followers deserve to know, or something?

I'm saying this after having invested significant time on this whole thing, and realizing it was a huge waste. Its not that I haven't, in light of all the information, decided it can safely be said Dehlin sexually harassed her, in that, sexual harassment includes him forcing her out (and since she was brought back on for a short time later in 2012, there is some grey there).

The problem, of course is, you weren't involved. Your plight seems intent on one thing--to take down Dehlin. My problem here is there is nothing more to do about it. This happened 10 years ago. She pursued it and it all worked out in Dehlin's favor. You win some and lose some. I hate to sound harsh, but that is life. At some point its time to pick up the pieces and move on. If Dehlin is as bad as Rosebud and you are painting him to be, there would be more to the story. If he made some huge mistakes and piled onto those more mistakes and yet has found a way to move forward in a more healthy way, fine. I mean what's it to you? I ask that knowing you worked for him or with him...and you seem intent on exposing him still, as if your story too has more to add to the Dehlin madness. If so, then show it. If not, then just move on, man. This persistence only plays into him being victimized and in the long run helps him.

You and Rosebud have done some major disservices to your own causes. This all came out as kids playing games and you turned off every reasonable person who potentially would have heard it. Pick up your pieces and move on. You aren't supporting Rosebud by continuing this campaign. I'm being as sympathetic as I can be.

[consiglieri]

I think Lem has done the best and most lucid job of characterizing what JD did as improper and even sexual harassment.

JP and Rosebud would be well advised to adopt Lem’s arguments.

I think the reason they don’t/won’t is because it doesn’t paint JD in a sufficiently Machiavellian hue for their purposes.

[Kishkumen]

Which part of her commentary in the podcast do you consider reliable, then?

Hers is kind of a synthetic view of what happened in the aftermath. I think it is basically accurate, albeit not really careful in the details. I think she did a decent job for not having really refreshed her memory carefully.

[Kishkumen]

Given the fact that Rosebud supporters have created a website calling Dehlin a pedophile, I think that was a wise choice not to announce it ahead of time.

I agree. This campaign against Dehlin is really a lot more about other things than Rosebud. Rosebud is being used as a lever by people who have their own reasons to want to take John out. For that reason alone, it is wise not to hand them any pitchforks and torches, or provide them the information they need to gather with them at a certain time and place.

[Kishkumen]

I think Lem has done the best and most lucid job of characterizing what JD did as improper and even sexual harassment.

JP and Rosebud would be well advised to adopt Lem’s arguments.

I think the reason they don’t/won’t is because it doesn’t paint JD in a sufficiently Machiavellian hue for their purposes.

Agreed on all points. Lem, as so often, makes a logical and forceful argument. I agree that a case can be made that JD technically sexually harassed Rosebud by the standards of our time. The more I learn from all parties, the messier and more uncertain it becomes. Much of what undermines Rosebud's case comes from her and her friends. There is nothing I have learned from that 3-hour autobiography that clears anything up for me. Indeed, I only have a deeper sense that Rosebud is a troubled person with a vendetta against JD.

Clearly the anti-JD brigade is out to harm him anyway they can because they believe he is a bad person and the wrong person to be in the role he has found himself in. In short, this is vigilante and mob justice in the digital age. When someone can't get what they perceive to be justice through legal means, they can try to harm their target by other means, and we are watching that in motion right now.

[Meadowchik]

I can live with that.

What do you mean by winged monkeys?